(NaturalNews) While UK citizens were revolting en masse against bureaucratic rule in Europe, another cabal of prostituted lawmakers were busy plotting against American food consumers. According to this announcement from the United States Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, committee leaders have reached a “bipartisan agriculture biotechnology compromise solution.”

What exactly is this so-called “compromise?”

The complete banning of all GMO labeling state laws across America.

And that’s just for starters. After that, this new “compromise” decrees that no foods shall be GMO labeled for two years while the USDA ponders the best way to deceive consumers and hide Monsanto’s GMOs for another few years. The suggested law also gives the USDA the right to decree that any foods with less than 50% bioengineered content could be considered non-GMO, by the way.

Photo credit: Karen Eliot / Flickr (CC BY-SA 2.0) and Thierry Chervel / Flickr (CC BY-SA 2.0) The biggest corporate takeover of 2016, if it happens, will create a company with a virtual lock on the world’s food supply.Germany’s pesticide and pharmaceutical giant Bayer has offered $62 billion to buy Monsanto, the world’s largest producer of genetically modified seeds. The first bid was rejected but Bayer has the money to go much higher.

The merger would give new meaning to the words “market dominance.” Eighty-five percent of all corn and 93 percent of soy planted in the US contains Monsanto’s patented, genetically modified (GM) traits and is engineered to tolerate Monsanto’s weed killer Roundup (glyphosate). But US farmers also coat almost 90 percent of US corn seeds — and, increasingly, other major crops like soy — with a different pesticide that is produced by Bayer.

(NaturalNews) Celebrity scientists such as Neil deGrasse Tyson, Michio Kaku and Bill Nye keep their careers afloat by embracing mainstream scientific theories and presenting them to the public in a reassuring show-biz manner – and not by applying any real criticalal thought themselves.

You don’t get invited to appear in the mainstream media on a regular basis by questioning the status quo or being skeptical about Big Pharma, the biotech industry or vaccine safety, for example. And you certainly won’t be featured on network news or talk shows if you dare to question the climate change agenda.

Bill Nye, the “science guy,” has become little more than a shill for the GMO industry and a cheerleader for the global warming carbon-trading scheme, among other agendas (such as eugenics and depopulation). It seems that remaining in the limelight is more important to Nye than remaining true to some of his earlier, more sensible opinions on issues such as GMOs.

In light of the recent public anger over the Monsanto Protection Act, here’s a simple, printable list of companies that use Monsanto products. By avoiding products made by companies on this list, you can help ensure your money isn’t going to Monsanto and also watch out for the health of your family and yourself.

Myths about pesticides are a testimony to the power of advertising, marketing and lobbying. Pesticide corporations, like Big Tobacco and the oil industry, have systematically manufactured doubt about the science behind pesticides and fostered the myth that their products are essential to life as we know it—and harmless if “used as directed.”

Myths about pesticides are a testimony to the power of advertising, marketing and lobbying. Photo credit: Pesticide Action Network

The book Merchants of Doubt calls it the “Tobacco Strategy”—orchestrated PR and legal campaigns to deny the evidence, often using rogue scientists to invent controversy around so-called “junk science,” for everything from second-hand smoke causing cancer to global warming to the hazards of DDT.

Here are eight of the seemingly plausible myths we hear from the “Big 6” pesticide corporations, including Monsanto, every day:

Myth #1: “Pesticides Are Necessary to Feed the World”

Reality: The most comprehensive analysis of world agriculture to date tells us that what can feed the world—and what feeds most of the world now, in fact—is small-scale agriculture that does not rely on pesticides.

If we were serious about feeding people, we wouldn’t grow enough extra grain to feed one-third of the world’s hungry and then pour it into gas tanks. Photo credit: Pesticide Action Network

Dow, Monsanto, Syngenta and other pesticide producers have marketed their products as necessary to feed the world. Yet as insecticide use increased in the U.S. by a factor of 10 in the 50 years following World War II, crop losses almost doubled. Corn is illustrative: in place of crop rotations, most acreage was planted year after year only with corn. Despite more than a 1,000-fold increase in use of organophosphate insecticides, crop losses to insects has risen from three-and-a-half percent to 12 percent (D. Pimental and M. Pimental, 2008).

More to the point, hunger in an age of plenty isn’t a problem of production (or yields, as the pesticide industry claims), efficiency or even distribution. It is a matter of priorities. If we were serious about feeding people, we wouldn’t grow enough extra grain to feed one-third of the world’s hungry—and then pour it into gas tanks.

Myth #2: “Pesticides Aren’t That Dangerous”

Reality: Pesticides are dangerous by design. They are engineered to cause death. And harms to human health are very well documented, with children especially at risk. Here are a few recent examples from the news:

An entire class of pesticides (organophosphates) has been linked to higher rates of ADHD in children

The herbicide atrazine, found in 94 percent of our water supply, has been linked to birth defects, infertility and cancer

Women exposed to the pesticide endosulfan during pregnancy are more likely to have autistic children

Girls exposed to DDT before puberty are five times more likely to develop breast cancer

The World Health Organization recently designated the key ingredient in the widely used herbicide Roundup a “probable human carcinogen”

A large and growing body of peer-reviewed, scientific studies document that pesticides are harmful to human health. The environmental damage caused by pesticides is also clear—from male frogs becoming females after exposure, to collapsing populations of bats and honeybees.

BRUSSELS, Oct 4 (Reuters) – Nineteen EU member states have requested opt-outs for all or part of their territory from cultivation of a Monsanto genetically-modified crop, which is authorised to be grown in the European Union, the European Commission said on Sunday.

Under a law signed in March, individual countries can seek exclusion from any approval request for genetically modified cultivation across the 28-nation EU.

The law was introduced to end years of stalemate as genetically modified crops divide opinion in Europe.

Although widely grown in the Americas and Asia, public opposition is strong in Europe and environmentalists have raised concerns about the impact on biodiversity.

Commission spokesman Enrico Brivio on Sunday confirmed in an emailed statement the Commission had received 19 opt-out requests following the expiry of a deadline on Saturday.

It has an impact on almost every person on the planet at some stage during their lives, either directly or indirectly. More than one in two people born after 1960 will be diagnosed with some form of this affliction during their lifetime. Over 8,000,000 die each year as a direct result of contracting this disease, millions more will lose a close family member or friend, and those numbers are rising exponentially.

It is the number one killer disease on the planet. Someone, somewhere, dies from it every four seconds. To put that into perspective, four people died of this disease just whilst you read the first paragraph of this article! My own brother succumbed to the ravages of this killer just last month.

I am, needless to say, talking about cancer.

Yet it is mostly preventable – and curable….. Yes, you read that correctly.

But first we must ask why this deadly disease is affecting more and more people. In 1900, in America, cancer (of any kind) affected just 3 out of every 100 people, and killed just 63 out of every 100,000 population. In 2013 that figure had tripled to 185 per 100,000. It is projected that by 2030, just fifteen years from now, cancer incidence worldwide will rise by almost 70%, and 24,000,000 new cases will be diagnosed annually. With a mortality rate of almost 60% this equates to a projected 14.4 million deaths a year (a figure I believe to be grossly underestimated).

If one were to peruse literature produced by mainstream medicine and cancer institutions, one would find a multitude of possible causes for this deadly disease, even though no one really knows for certain what causes specific cancers.

At the top of the list of main causes is tobacco use. One will find this causation on every mainstream medical page on the Internet. However, when one analyses data provided by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the Centre for Disease Control (CDC), one realises that there is little data to support this premise.

Whilst many cancer institutions would have us all believe that smoking is responsible for up to 90% of lung cancer deaths, this figure is quite simply a vastly exaggerated lie. Statistics produced by the WHO and CDC confirm that only 8 out of every 100 lifetime smokers have a chance of contracting and dying from lung cancer. Additionally, despite what many cancer research sites state, there have never been any studies carried out that conclusively prove a correlation between second hand smoke (passive smoking) and increased risk of developing cancer.

I am not in any way defending the tobacco industry with these statements, and would never advocate smoking to anyone as smoking is proven to have a detrimental effect on ones health. Whilst it is indisputable that smokers have an increased chance of getting cancer compared to non-smokers, according to official figures only 1 in 5 cancer related deaths are a result of smoking. Therefore, quitting smoking will slightly reduce ones chance of contracting and dying from cancer.

But if smoking is only attributable to 20% of cancer deaths, what could be causing the other 80%?

According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), common risk factors for cancer include:

Environmental and occupational risks including ionizing and non-ionizing radiation

A few of the cancer sites also mentioned a slight risk from carcinogens in the environment and workplace, but usually dismissed them as insignificant.

But what if these environmental carcinogens were not insignificant but actually a major cause for concern.

According to Samuel Epstein, Professor of Environmental Medicine at the University of Illinois;

“the chemical industry quite clearly uses tobacco as a smokescreen to divert attention from the role of carcinogenic chemicals in inducing lung cancer and other cancers.”

Literature linking cancer to exposure to carcinogenic chemicals is voluminous. According to WHO, solvents used in paints are known carcinogens, painters having a 40 percent higher chance of contracting stomach, bladder, larynx and other cancers, while their children are at increased risk of contracting leukaemia and brain tumours.

Additives in food such as benzene-related dyes to make orange juice orange, or peas green, are known to cause Hodgkin’s disease, a cancer of the lymph glands. People working in agriculture or the food processing industry are twice as likely to suffer from cancer of the bone marrow than the general population.

A study from the University of North Carolina found that children who played in gardens sprayed with pesticides were about four times more likely to contract certain types of cancer than children whose gardens had not been sprayed.

A large number of modern (synthetic) pesticides are now regarded by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other such organisations as proven or suspected carcinogens.

But there is one chemical being used in huge quantities the world over. A chemical that has the potential to eradicate the human race….

Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s best selling herbicide Roundup, is one of the most commonly used herbicides in the world. Billions of gallons have been sprayed on multiple crops worldwide for over 40 years. It has recently been discovered in scientific studies that glyphosate is highly carcinogenic.

Furthermore, secret documents and unpublished industry studies recently uncovered by a researcher and scientist clearly show Monsanto knew in 1981 that glyphosate causes tumorigenic growth and carcinomas in multiple organs and tissues. According to Dr. Samsel, a research scientist who is passionate about farming, gardening, and agriculture, who carried out the investigation into glyphosate;

“They knew over 30 years ago that glyphosate caused adenomas and carcinomas in the rats that they’d studied”.